'Indian history was distorted by the British'

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad,

I will look at those papers at my leisure.

I think you overlooked what I had said. You are debating AIT, while I was arguing on AIT/AMT. We are not debating the same thing here. My stand is that either there was an invasion or migration, or both, but definitely all Indians do not belong to the same stock. This is not supported by statistical evidence, but by visual evidence, as I have traveled North, South, East, and West. All Indians do not look the same, so they could not have come out of the same gene pool. Secondly, even if we are to consider genetic mutation, other homogeneous countries should also have witnessed similar diversity.

I do not believe that we have enough knowledge about the human genome to actually be able to do a comprehensive study. All conclusions are prefunctory. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the Aryans did invade, and on that count I agree, but there is also insufficient evidence to prove all Indians came form the same stock, simply because statistical similarity tests also show more than 97% similarity between Africans and Europeans; thereby rendering those tests unreliable.

I will, however, look at those papers.

We should debate this in the AIT thread. No more here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
@pmaitra

One of the flawed premises behind AIT is that it assumes introduction of foreign culture (or elements of foreign culture) = invasion/migration of foreign people. But it is also possible that these elements of foreign culture could have been introduced to a native people without any large-scale movement of people, through a long process of acculturation. I'd like to hear your opinion on my post below, which I cross-posted from another thread.

Maybe there were no major migrations from outside India, but there were quite likely major internal migrations that took place in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. I personally think that there was a mass eastwards movement of Harappan people from the Indus Valley region to the Indo-Gangetic plain during this time, caused by shifting climactic conditions and drying of the Saraswati.

These Later Harappans were not the exact same as their earlier ancestors, however. I believe that, from the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. onward, there was a steady process of acculturation and mixing that took place between the Harappans and the IE-speaking peoples of present-day Afghanistan. It is known that the Harappans had outposts/colonies as far north as the Amu Darya, and it can be safely assumed that they had regular interactions with the people there. There were probably also small-scale migrations by IE-speaking peoples from the highland regions into the Punjab around this time, which served as a further catalyst for this process of cultural mixing. The Harappan civilization went into decline by c.1700 B.C.E. and was gradually replaced by more localized cultures, which developed from the old IVC but begin to show characteristics of Vedic culture, like cremation (Old Harappans buried their dead instead). The Cemetery H culture of the Sapta-Sindhu region is a good case in point. What this suggests, is that the IE culture gradually became dominant among the Harappan peoples during the 2nd millennium B.C.E. as the end result of a long process of cultural interaction, which probably also entailed a language shift to proto-Sanskrit. The Harappan migrants would have thus spread this new culture along with their agrarian economy east into the Gangetic region, and the Indic civilization would be born.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
^^^ yes I did. You have just changed IE from afghan in place of Aryan and harappan in place of dravidian. or am I missing something???:notsure:
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
And before I leave there is one fatal flaw in your theory similar to the AMT/AIT(though I see no difference)- timeline. Figure it out;)
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
^^^ yes I did. You have just changed IE from afghan in place of Aryan and harappan in place of dravidian. or am I missing something???:notsure:
Yes. The implication of AIT/AMT is that the introduction of IE (Indo-European) culture and language into the subcontinent was the result of foreigners ("Aryans") moving into India and displacing the "native" cultures. But there is little to no evidence to support the assertion that a large influx of people (and genes) from outside India took place during this time. Instead, I argue that the Harappans, or at least a portion of them, adopted IE culture through a process of acculturation (look up "acculturation" if you don't know what it means), and then spread this culture eastwards into the Ganga-Yamuna doab. The implication of my theory is that most North Indians would be biologically descended from Harappans, rather than "Aryans" from Central Asia or elsewhere. This is supported by archaeological evidence; for example, the skeletons of the Cemetery H culture in Punjab region show strong similarities with those of the IVC.

In other words: IE/Indo-Aryan culture in India was physically spread by "Aryanized" Indians (Harappans), not by some horsemen from Central Asia.

And before I leave there is one fatal flaw in your theory similar to the AMT/AIT(though I see no difference)- timeline. Figure it out;)
I can't figure it out. Please enlighten me.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
^^^ you are asserting something not supported by evidence of any kind. A few cementaries are proof of what? Entire culture? How did you know they were not something which were born inside India over time? And how does it even begin to explain coming of IE language to India?


Why should we have a convoluted reasoning as to the IE culture came from outside rather than it originated from here anyway?

And the part on mixing is wrong(atleast according to genetics-no significant material influx into Indian genome as per latest research for nearly 40000 years:notsure:) and so is your saying about acculturization- besides being assertions without proof, they provoke further questions as to how a small group not even detectable by retrospective genetic studies was able to change entire India??? Little far fetched no- and remember we are not talking about some kind of globolized world here- where a single idea magically becomes a hit.


I think based on the genetic study available , the most likely conclusion is that IVC and later vedic civilisation were part and parcel same group of people- with origin in India, with gradual cultural growth and metamorphosis. This one makes the least no. of assumptions and hence more likely to be valid.
 

Das ka das

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
895
Likes
456
@pmaitra

One of the flawed premises behind AIT is that it assumes introduction of foreign culture (or elements of foreign culture) = invasion/migration of foreign people. But it is also possible that these elements of foreign culture could have been introduced to a native people without any large-scale movement of people, through a long process of acculturation. I'd like to hear your opinion on my post below, which I cross-posted from another thread.
One thing I don't understand about this scenario is why did the advanced Harappans get acculturated by the relatively primitive tribal peoples of Afghanistan (I assume they would be from BMAC culture)? Usually acculturation happens when a backward people get "civilized" by a more sedentary people (Turks being Persianized) or when an an army of invaders subjugates a land (Arabs wrt Mesopotamia, Egypt).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
One thing I don't understand about this scenario is why did the advanced Harappans get acculturated by the relatively primitive tribal peoples of Afghanistan (I assume they would be from BMAC culture)? Usually acculturation happens when a backward people get "civilized" by a more sedentary people (Turks being Persianized) or when an an army of invaders subjugates a land (Arabs wrt Mesopotamia, Egypt).
That is what I asked him too, how can a small population which can't even be detected by population studies be able to change the whole nation wrt culture and language??


Not just tat , there is no evidence to even suggest tat it is possible.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
All the world's misfortune in general and India in particular is the white pigs fault. If only the Nawab of Bengal had won the Battle of Plassey and with the help of France conquered England and the rest of Europe the world would have been a paradise:rolleyes:

To call a people pigs, is low.
People? first have a look on the background of these people, what background they brought with themselves when they arrived in India, as below...:tsk:

after looting India, smuggling of heroine to China was the very first business of British in India.....:uk: :china:

the reason why Mr Gandhi never liked these people, as below:
The boycott of British goods by Mahatma Gandhi known as the swadeshi policy—the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially British goods.

In addition to boycotting British products, Gandhi urged the people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours
:facepalm:

mohandas karamchand gandhi
and as stated in this video itself, the main points of freedom struggle of Mr Gandhi, as stated on this government website of India, as below :ranger:

Influenced by the Bhagvad Gita and Hindu beliefs, the Jain religion and the Christian teachings of Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi moved on the path of Satya and Ahimsa. 'Satya' meaning 'truth' and 'ahimsa' meaning 'non-violence' were the two weapons that Gandhi used to fight the enemy.

Gandhi inspired people to boycott British goods and refuse earthy possessions. This movement was known as Swaraj and was economically significant because Indian home industries were virtually destructed by British industrialists. He advocated renewal of native Indian industries and began to use a spinning wheel as a token of return to simple village life. Thereafter, he constantly began promoting satyagraha, non-violence, non-cooperation and swaraj to achieve independence. Finally, in August 1947, the British were forcedto leave India. :wave:

mohandas karamchand gandhi
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
hence, I have clearly said many times that 'success of India' is hidden in success of China itself. our natural economic order of the world for last over 20 centuries is as below. Indian GDP was on top till the 16th century and again came on the top by 18th century with sharing the top two spot with China till 18th century (check the table). but then the Western War Champions organized different wars and both of these two came down together in 19th and 20th century. and again we find both of these two going up together. and I would like to clearly state that China will always share the top two ranks with India, or both of these will come down together to serve intentions of Western War Champions. and, dont worry for the rank 1 position, first it would go to China and then I hope India would get the first economic rank, the highest GDP size, by 2050. we would just keep China leading mid this first half century with a hope that it would clear all the Western hurdles for India till 2050 :china:

=> List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
All the world's misfortune in general and India in particular is the white pigs fault. If only the Nawab of Bengal had won the Battle of Plassey and with the help of France conquered England and the rest of Europe the world would have been a paradise:rolleyes:

To call a people pigs, is low.
I agree. Calling people pigs is becoming a habit among many members, and is deplorable. This forum has many Indian and foreign members. The language of members is out there for everyone to see. As an Indian, I am not proud, and I assure you, not all Indians are like that. Please do accept my apologies.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
^^^ you are asserting something not supported by evidence of any kind. A few cementaries are proof of what? Entire culture? How did you know they were not something which were born inside India over time? And how does it even begin to explain coming of IE language to India?
A "few cemetaries" can give us an extraordinary amount of information about a culture. I suggest you refer to some basic books on archaeology if you want a more in-depth explanation.

What I am asserting is based on all the information that we currently have available and I consider it to be the best model so far. And I am not the only one who is proposing such a model, many others have also and it seems like the acculturation model is gaining popularity among historians and archaeologists since the past couple years. You can refer to this excellent paper for more information: Syncretism and Acculturation in Ancient India: A New Nine Phase Acculturation Model Explaining the Process of Transfer of Power from the Harappans to the Indo-Aryans - Part Two by Sujay Rao Mandavilli :: SSRN


Why should we have a convoluted reasoning as to the IE culture came from outside rather than it originated from here anyway?
The IE languages and culture extends over a vast region ranging from Western Europe to North India. If India is home to the PIE (proto-Indo-European) heartland, then that means a group of people from India transmitted their culture and language across thousands and thousands of kilometers as far as west as Europe. Evidence that such a transmission emanating from India across Eurasia took place is rather scarce, to say the least.

On the other hand, we know of Central Asian cultures that show characteristics of IE culture very early on, and we also know that these Central Asian cultures were early users of the horse and probable inventors of the chariot (the earliest archaeological evidence of chariots are found in the Sintashta culture of Central Asia around c.2100 B.C.E.). Thus, their society would have been highly mobile and most likely nomadic, just like subsequent Central Asian societies and even some Central Asian societies today, making them the best candidates for transmitting IE culture across such a vast range.

This map shows the extent of IE languages. India is on the very edge of the IE-speaking world. If IE languages originated in India, why didn't they spread into South India or further east? How did they manage to spread so far west into Europe, but only cover a portion of India itself?


Spread of the chariot, based on archaeological findings. It originated in Central Asia and then spread in all directions in subsequent centuries. The culture that invented the chariot would have been a highly mobile one.



And the part on mixing is wrong(atleast according to genetics-no significant material influx into Indian genome as per latest research for nearly 40000 years:notsure:) and so is your saying about acculturization- besides being assertions without proof, they provoke further questions as to how a small group not even detectable by retrospective genetic studies was able to change entire India???
Nowhere did I say that there was a significant influx into Indian genome. It is not at all uncommon for small, almost physically undetectable groups of people to move into new lands and have a huge cultural impact, changing the entire culture and civilization of the area. We see this in numerous examples throughout history: Indians in Southeast Asia, Varangians in Russia, Normans in England, etc. etc.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
One thing I don't understand about this scenario is why did the advanced Harappans get acculturated by the relatively primitive tribal peoples of Afghanistan (I assume they would be from BMAC culture)? Usually acculturation happens when a backward people get "civilized" by a more sedentary people (Turks being Persianized) or when an an army of invaders subjugates a land (Arabs wrt Mesopotamia, Egypt).
Firstly, you should know that the BMAC culture was far from 'primitive'. It was a sedentary civilization with sophisticated urban sites and had regular trade interactions with IVC (based on BMAC materials found in IVC sites). It was quite possibly a literate civilization as well.

As for exactly how the IE culture came to predominate among the Harappans, we cannot be completely sure but we can create a reasonable scenario based on the evidence and information that we have. It is known that IVC began declining in the first half of the second millennium B.C.E., due in part to deteriorating climactic conditions. The changing climate must have spurred some migration of people from the old IVC 'heartland' into the lands further east. It was during this migratory process, when these Later Harappans separated from the old IVC, that the IE cultural elements began to become dominant. One explanation for this is that the IE-speaking peoples who had assimilated into Harappan society had valuable skills that suited a mobile, frontier society, i.e. horse domestication and chariotry. The knowledge of chariot technology had spread to the BMAC culture by c.1800 B.C.E., shortly after it first appeared in Central Asia (owing to the close proximity between the two), and from there spread further south into India by the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. The IE-speaking peoples with expertise in chariotry and horse domestication might have risen to positions of social dominance in the migrating Harappan society, and their culture and language might have slowly become dominant among the Harappans, in a case of elite-driven language/culture shift. By c.1400 B.C.E., this process of cultural shift would have been more or less complete, and the Ganga-Yamuna doab would have been dominated by these "new" Harappans who had adopted IE culture. This view is supported by the increasing centrality of the horse and chariot in Post-Harappan cultures along the Ganga and Yamuna, such as in the presence of chariot burials for instance.

All of this is conjecture, of course. I can't claim to know what "really" happened, nobody can. The best we can do is attempt to reconstruct the past based on the limited information we have.
 

warriorextreme

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,866
Likes
3,033
Country flag
Rajiv Malhotra: European Misappropriation of Sanskrit led to the Aryan Race Theory

European Misappropriation of Sanskrit led to the Aryan Race Theory


It is not widely known that the European quest to appropriate the highly prized library of Sanskrit's ancient spiritual texts motivated the construction of the "Aryan" race identity, one of the ideological roots of Nazism. The Sanskrit word "arya" is an adjective that means noble or pure. For example, the famous Buddhist Four Noble Truths are described as the Four Arya Truths or catvāri āryasatyāni in Sanskrit. Arya does not refer to a race, but a cultural quality venerated in Sanskrit texts.

German nationalism turned this word into a noun, "Aryan," and capitalized it to refer to an imagined race of people that were the original Sanskrit speakers who had composed its great texts. Early romantic claims that Indians were the ancestors of the Europeans were gradually replaced by the new myth that a race called "Indo-Aryans" was the common ancestors to both. Their origin was thought to be in the Caucasus Mountains, hence the term "Caucasian." Later, the "Indo" was dropped and the white Aryan Race Theory emerged. Thus, from the European desire to be seen as the inheritors of the Sanskrit civilization, the notion of a European super-race was born, with Germany as its highest manifestation.

How did this come about? In the late 1700s, European identity was shaken when scholars discovered that Sanskrit was closely related to the European languages, though much older and more sophisticated. At first, this discovery fed European Romantic imagination, in which India was glorified as the perfect past. Herder, a German Romanticist, saw Europe's "discovery" of India as a "re-discovery" of its own foundation. India was viewed as Europe's mother civilization by Frederick Schlegel in Germany and by Voltaire in France. William Jones, a British colonial administrator, considered Sanskrit the most marvelous product of the human mind. Sanskrit and Indology entered most major European universities between 1800 and 1850, challenging if not replacing Latin and Greek texts as a source for "new" ideas. Many new disciplines were shaped by the ensuing intellectual activity, including linguistics, comparative religion, modern philosophy and sociology.

With European nations competing among themselves for civilizational legacy, many rival theories emerged regarding the origins of the original Sanskrit speakers and their civilization. German nationalists found in the affinity between Sanskrit and German the possibility of a newly respectable pedigree vis-à-vis the French, and claimed the heritage of the treasure trove of Sanskrit literature to bolster their cause. The British interpreted India and Sanskrit in a manner that would strengthen their own role as empire-builders, with India as the jewel in the crown. Because Indians were not participants in European forums, there was widespread plagiarism of Indian texts, as well as much distorted interpretation.

By "becoming" the Aryans, Europeans felt that they were the rightful custodians of the massive corpus of Sanskrit texts that were generating new breakthroughs in the humanities and liberal arts. Germans took their newly adopted Aryan identity to extremes, and most of the influential European thinkers of the time colluded. Their racist theories often had an anti-Semitic dimension, seeking to reconstruct the Bible in Aryan terms. Ernest Renan, a philologist and Hebrew scholar, drew sharp distinctions between Semitic and Aryan languages and peoples. He proposed that though Aryans began as polytheists they were later transformed into Christian monotheists, and that Semitic peoples comprised an entirely different (and inferior) civilization. Adolphe Pictet, a Swiss linguist and ethnographer, was fully committed to the notion of European Aryans who were destined to conquer the world being blessed with "innate beauty" and "gifts of intelligence." He separated Jesus from Judaism, and turned him into the Aryan Christ.

The nascent discipline called "race science" was reinforced by such ideas. Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, a French diplomat, philosopher and historian argued in his hugely influential Essay on the Inequality of Human Races that Adam from the Bible was the "originator of our white species." He wrote of the "superiority of the white type and within that type of the Aryan family." His thesis on India claimed that white Aryans had invaded India and subsequently began to intermarry with the local population. Realizing the danger of intermarriage, the Aryan lawgivers invented the caste system as a means of self-preservation. India was held up as an example of how interbreeding with an inferior race could bring about the decline of a superior one. Hitler's idea of "purifying" the Aryans was born out of this, and it culminated in the Holocaust.

Houston Chamberlain was a British historian whose magnum opus, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (written in German), also projected Aryan-Germans as the most evolved among Aryan races. He introduced Christian, scientific and philosophical arguments to lend credibility and explained the benefits that Christianity would derive by supporting German racism. Anthropologist Kenneth Kennedy concludes of Gobineau and Chamberlain, that they "transformed the Aryan concept, which had its humble origins in philological research conducted by Jones in Calcutta at the end of the eighteenth century, into the politics and racial doctrines of Adolph Hitler's Third Reich."

In 2007, I played a role in a historic milestone when I was invited to address the first Hindu-Jewish Summit. I spoke on the Aryan myth and the suffering that it had inflicted on both religious communities. Contrary to earlier apprehensions of some Hindus that this was a "risky" topic to bring up, the head of the Jewish delegation, Rabbi Rosen, member of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel's Commission for Inter-religious Dialogue, was very impressed. The Jewish delegation decided to appoint a team of scholars to study the issue and the references I had supplied. As a result, at the following year's Summit, a joint declaration was signed, which included the following language from my draft:

"Since there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory of an Aryan invasion/migration into India, and on the contrary, there is compelling evidence to refute it; and since the theory seriously damages the integrity of the Hindu tradition and its connection to India; we call for a serious reconsideration of this theory, and a revision of all educational material on this issue that includes the most recent and reliable scholarship."
Today, the Western mainstream has made special efforts to remove the notion of an Aryan race from the vocabulary and the public psyche. However, as my recently released book, Breaking India, explains, the damage in India has worsened. The Dravidian Race Theory was formulated by British missionaries in the 1800s in parallel with the Aryan theory, and it divides the peoples of India into racial categories of "Aryans" and "Dravidians." Western scholars and institutions continue to support Dravidian racism, which is dependent upon acceptance of the Aryan race construct. In a future blog I will explain how Christian missionaries are now exploiting these dangerous constructs.
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
He kind of has a point you know. We had 65 yrs of freedom. What did we do with it?. And it is not like British created an artificial caste/religious divide is it?? Most of Indian problems are home grown:truestory:

@Mad Indian it is true that the caste system as we see today is unjust and a blot on Hinduism. OTOH historically if it was as inquituous why was there no large scale exodus to Islam and then Christianity ? Islam and Christianity are definitely more egalitarian than Hinduism and Islam has been knocking on the doors of India since 7th-8th century. Also the fact that many of our great sages and rishis were Shudras - Adi Kavi Valmiki who wrote down the Ramayana and invented the `sloka` meter of poetry was a Shudra, the great physician Sushruta was a potter by caste [Brahmins were forbidden from taking up physicians profession among others], etc.

Having said that - I believe caste system will go thanks to science i.e. the discovery that all Indians are a mix of ANI and ASI and the fact that people of India from different states are mixing like never before and taking to mixed marriages in increasing numbers !
 
Last edited by a moderator:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
@Mad Indian it is true that the caste system as we see today is unjust and a blot on Hinduism. OTOH historically if it was as inquituous why was there no large scale exodus to Islam and then Christianity ? Islam and Christianity are definitely more egalitarian than Hinduism and Islam has been knocking on the doors of India since 7th-8th century. Also the fact that many of our great sages and rishis were Shudras - Adi Kavi Valmiki who wrote down the Ramayana and invented the `sloka` meter of poetry was a Shudra, the great physician Sushruta was a potter by caste [Brahmins were forbidden from taking up physicians profession among others], etc.

Having said that - I believe caste system will go thanks to science i.e. the discovery that all Indians are a mix of ANI and ASI and the fact that people of India from different states are mixing like never before and taking to mixed marriages in increasing numbers !
There was never a large-scale exodus of low-caste Hindus to Islam because in India there was a formally sanctioned caste system in Islam itself. See Ziauddin Barani and his work in the courts of Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah. The Turkic ruling elite enjoyed great social prestige and were not willing to share it with native converts who could claim social equality on a religious basis. Contrary to popular belief, Islamic rulers in India were not as interested in gaining new converts to Islam as they were in preserving and consolidating their power and increasing their own prestige. Kind of like rulers everywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@civ I will learn more about it and then judge. For now I will give you the benefit of doubt;)
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@Mad Indian it is true that the caste system as we see today is unjust and a blot on Hinduism. OTOH historically if it was as inquituous why was there no large scale exodus to Islam and then Christianity ? Islam and Christianity are definitely more egalitarian than Hinduism and Islam has been knocking on the doors of India since 7th-8th century. Also the fact that many of our great sages and rishis were Shudras - Adi Kavi Valmiki who wrote down the Ramayana and invented the `sloka` meter of poetry was a Shudra, the great physician Sushruta was a potter by caste [Brahmins were forbidden from taking up physicians profession among others], etc.

Having said that - I believe caste system will go thanks to science i.e. the discovery that all Indians are a mix of ANI and ASI and the fact that people of India from different states are mixing like never before and taking to mixed marriages in increasing numbers !
We can make castes disappear at a faster rate by removing social stratification of left retarded socialist policies and bringing up people to middle class. We can also fasten te process by encouraging sponsored inter caste marriages:thumb:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top